Saturday, December 14, 2013

FYI: 9th Cir Holds Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Does Not Render Claim Moot, Even If Offer Would Fully Satisfy the Claim

Acknowledging a circuit split on the issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that an unaccepted Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 offer of judgment is insufficient to render the claim moot, even if the offer of judgment would fully satisfy a plaintiff's claim.

Plaintiff, the owner of a home warranty plan, filed a class action complaint against the company providing the warranty alleging the company refused to make timely repairs, used substandard contractors and wrongfully denied claims.Plaintiff asserted state law claims for unfair competition, misrepresentation, concealment, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The district court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for concealment, false promise, unfair competition and violation of California consumer laws under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).The district court also entered an order denying class certification.Thereafter, the company made a Rule 68 offer of judgment on Plaintiff's remaining individual claims – misrepresentation, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.The company offered to allow judgment entered against it and in favor of Plaintiff in the total amount of $7,019.21 plus costs.

When Plaintiff did not accept the offer, the company moved to dismiss those claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The company argued that the matter should be dismissed as moot because Plaintiff refused to accept an offer for full satisfaction of the amount she could possibly recover at trial. The company cited to opinions from the Seventh and Fourth Circuits where those courts held that "once a defendant offers to satisfy the plaintiff's entire demand, there is no dispute over which to litigate, and a plaintiff who refuses to acknowledge this loses outright, under Rule 12(b)(1), because he has no remaining stake."

The district court agreed with the company that the unaccepted Rule 68 offer rendered Plaintiff's remaining claims moot because the offer would have fully satisfied Plaintiff's remaining claims.The district court acknowledged that Plaintiff also sought declaratory and injunctive relief, which was not covered in the Rule 68 offer, but determined that she was not entitled to such relief.Having determined that the company's offer would have given Plaintiff "complete relief," and relying on the rulings from the Seventh and Fourth Circuits, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit clarified the issue: whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would have fully satisfied a plaintiff's claim is sufficient to render the claim moot.

The Ninth Circuit observed that neither it nor the United States Supreme Court had previously addressed the issue. Although the Ninth Circuit had addressed the application of an unaccepted Rule 68 offer in class actions, and an agreement to accept everything the other party has demanded, it deemed the issue in this appeal "an open question in this circuit."The Ninth Circuit concluded that although a majority of courts and commentators appear to agree with the Seventh Circuit that an unaccepted offer will moot a plaintiff's claim, "four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the Solicitor General of the U.S., embraced a contrary position" in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 1528-29 (2013).Although the majority in Genesis Healthcare did not address the issue, four justices addressed it in the dissent and concluded that "an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a case."

"We made clear earlier this Term that [a]s long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.By those measures, an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a case.When a plaintiff rejects such an offer - however good the terms – her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was before.And so too does the court's ability to grant her relief.An unaccepted settlement offer – like any unaccepted contract offer – is a legal nullity, with no operative effect.As every first-year law student learns, the recipient's rejection of an offer leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made.Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle; to the contrary, that rule specifies that an unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn.So assuming the case was live before – because the plaintiff had a stake and the court could grant relief – the litigation carries on, unmooted."

Relying on the dissent from Genesis Healthcare and the "language, structure and purposes of Rule 68," the Ninth Circuit held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would have fully satisfied a plaintiff's claim does not render that claim moot.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims and remanded the matter to the district court.

NOTICE: We do not send unsolicited emails. If you received this email in error, or if you wish to be removed from our update distribution list, please simply reply to this email and state your intention. Thank you.

PLEASE NOTE:

The editor and sponsoring law firm of this blog represent and serve banks, lenders, loan buyers, loan servicers, debt collectors, and other financial services companies. We do not represent consumers.

Please note that any communications or information obtained may be provided to our clients, including for the purpose of debt collection.

The information in this blog and related updates is general in nature, and should not be considered legal advice.

Legal advice requires a full and complete understanding of a particular situation. Your situation may involve material facts that prevent the direct application of the information in this blog and related updates.

You will not become a client of the editor or sponsoring law firm simply by reading this blog. In order to become a client of the editor or sponsoring law firm, the editor or sponsoring law firm must agree to represent you in writing. Until we agree to represent you in writing, we are not prevented from representing any other party.

Until you are a client of the editor or sponsoring law firm, any communications with us will not be confidential.

Ralph Wutscher's practice focuses primarily on representing depository and non-depository mortgage lenders and servicers, as well as mortgage loan investors, distressed asset buyers and sellers, loss mitigation companies, automobile and other personal property secured lenders and finance companies, credit card and other unsecured lenders, and other consumer financial services providers. He represents the consumer lending industry as a litigator, and as regulatory compliance counsel.

Ralph has substantial experience in defending private consumer finance lawsuits, including cases ranging from large interstate putative class actions to localized single-asset cases, as well as in responding to regulatory investigations and other governmental proceedings. His litigation successes include not only victories at the trial court level, but also on appeal, and in various jurisdictions. He has successfully defended numerous putative class actions asserting violations of a wide range of federal and state consumer protection statutes. He is frequently consulted to assist other law firms in developing or improving litigation strategies in cases filed around the country.

Ralph also has substantial experience in counseling clients regarding their compliance with federal laws, and with state and local laws primarily of the Midwestern United States. For example, he regularly provides assistance in connection with portfolio or program audits, consumer lending disclosure issues, the design and implementation of marketing and advertising campaigns, licensing and reporting issues, compliance with usury laws and other limitations on pricing, compliance with state and local “predatory lending” laws, drafting or obtaining opinion letters on a single- or multi-state basis, interstate branching and loan production office licensing, evaluations and modifications of new or existing products and procedures, debt collection and servicing practices, proper methods of responding to consumer inquiries and furnishing consumer information, as well as proposed or existing arrangements with settlement service providers and other vendors, and the implementation of procedural or other operational changes following developments in the law.

Ralph is a member of the Governing Committee of the Conference on Consumer Finance Law. He is also the immediate past Chair of the Preemption and Federalism Subcommittee for the ABA's Consumer Financial Services Committee. He served on the Law Committee for the former National Home Equity Mortgage Association, and completed two terms as Co-Chair of the Consumer Credit Committee of the Chicago Bar Association.

Ralph received his Juris Doctor from the University of Illinois College of Law, and his undergraduate degree from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). He is a member of the national Mortgage Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, the Conference on Consumer Finance Law, DBA International, the ACA International Members Attorney Program, as well as the American and Chicago Bar Associations.

Ralph is admitted to practice in Illinois, as well as in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and has been admitted pro hac vice in various jurisdictions around the country.